Skip to main content

anti-Trump post by Contendahh.  Better learn to live with it.

Read about his phony "self-funding" of his campaign from this noted conservative web site:

http://www.redstate.com/absent...&utm_campaign=nl

Keep on defending this vulgarian if you wish.  But you will find yourself laughably on the wrong side of history.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

I have a $3 bill with Bill C. on it. 

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

____

If you distinctly heard that, then put it up on here instead of requiring us to trust your memory.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

____

Let us not forget that the issue of self-funding is broader than simply the question of whether Trump committed only to self-funding his primary campaign.  Trump himself has repeatedly stated that his self-funding initiative is a wonderful thing because it isolates him from any real or implied pay-back obligations to lobbyists and special interests who would otherwise donate large sums of money.  That donor class will now be donating to his non-self funding campaign.  Is there some magic by which those contributions miraculously will not have the same taint as Trump attached to their contributions in primary elections?

Last edited by Contendahh
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

____

If you distinctly heard that, then put it up on here instead of requiring us to trust your memory.

You do understand not all statements are on videos? 

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

____

If you distinctly heard that, then put it up on here instead of requiring us to trust your memory.

You do understand not all statements are on videos? 

Uh, DIRE, not every statement is on video.  You choose the medium; then put it up.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

He loaned his campaign the funds.  More likely, he will write off the loan on next year's tax return.  Of course, the source is an extreme left wing one, so much for any perspective. 

___

Yep,  the cheap and easy way to dismiss something without any kind of either independent verification or proof of error--just attack the source.  That is the lazy man's polemical preference and it really sucks.

No, writing off a loan to one's campaign fund as a loss is quite common for politicians.  Just another one of Condie's discourses of ignorance.

___

I know of no other politicians who have claimed self-financing under this kind of scenario and neither do you.

Writing off a loan such as you describe is indeed a common practice, but you carefully avoided addressing the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly claimed that he is "self-financing" and that he thereby avoids any implications that he will be subject to the undue influence of lobbyists or other powerful special interests who might otherwise donate to his campaign. He never said anything that would imply that his "self-financing" would be limited to the primary campaign.  And he is now accepting donations as the presumptive nominee (and was in fact accepting some donations during the primary as well). And if he is repaid his loan, then he can scarcely even claim to have "self-financed" his primary campaign, since in the final analysis his outlays during the primary will be reimbursed, having in the final analysis become been donor-financed, not "self-financed."

Trump is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

No, Contenduhh, you're just kvetching in anyway you can. I hear him say he would fund his primary run, not his entire run.  If, you can't keep up, that is on you. As to writing off the loan?  Why not take advantage of the existing tax laws! 

___

No.  Only after he had essentially won the primary did he back-pedal and "explain" that his commitment to self-financing was limited exclusively to the primary.  His earlier statements about self-financing never said or implied such a limitation. It is you who are not keeping up. As to "taking advantage of the existing  tax laws," that factor does nothing to restrict the source of the reimbursement funds, which could well come in large part from those lobbyists and special interests he allegedly does not wish to become obliged to.

Either you didn't pay attention early on, or your short term memory is failing.  I distinctly heard him state he would self finance his primary race,  Condie believes, I suppose, I should support his statements, over my lying eyes and ears  -- not hardly!

____

If you distinctly heard that, then put it up on here instead of requiring us to trust your memory.

You do understand not all statements are on videos? 

Uh, DIRE, not every statement is on video.  You choose the medium; then put it up.

To put it succinctly, I'm not going to wade thru it to satisfy one old coot.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×